As the saying goes:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
If the company is going to betray everything it once stood for, hire executives from "peer" companies, why not just accept the reality that it's just another sh---y bank?
@OP i worked at USAA from 2018-2023 in P&C. After i left in 2023 and opened my own independent agency i realized that USAA is peddling the same cr-p policies every other company sells and there is not thing special about USAA products except that USAA stamp on it. USAA is just another sh---y company now.
I’ve worked at a public company. USAA is way too secretive for that. It’s pretty unpleasant as a public Company employee as well because everyone is only focused on current quarter’s stock performance.
@e9 Tell me you're wearing sunglasses in your social media profile without telling me you're wearing sunglasses in your social media profile
ICE need to pay Juan a visit
We’d be better off as a public company, that will never happen because we are too good at laundering money and a public company would identify that immediately.
@a5+1khmphhxw Would a heavy lift sound something like a bevvy of "cease and desist" orders starting from 2019 and USAA HR saying "we've over invested in employees" around the same year?
I appreciate the engagement, but I'd argue the company would be better off with shareholders than the current board of directors.
If we’re talking about the bank and not the company (primarily the insurance side) as a whole, that’s an interesting question. Even if execs and the jackals on the board wanted to take the whole company public, it would be a heavy lift; we’re structurally designed to impede a drastic operational change like that. It would require member approval and would essentially decimate the company’s identity. They’d probably only consider doing that if the company were on the brink of collapse. The bank could theoretically be spun off or sold without demutalizing the insurance exchange, which is member owned, but they’d probably have to make the case that it was to the benefit of the members. Either way, regulators would definitely have some say on this as well. If we were a partnership, however, say like Goldman in the 90’s, I have no doubt those clowns would go public to enrich themselves.